Search

BackgroundDespite the accumulation of research papers on aspirin and cancer, there is doubt as to whether or not aspirin is an acceptable and effective adjunct treatment of cancer. The results of several randomised trials are awaited, and these should give clear evidence on three common cancers: colon, breast and prostate. The biological effects of aspirin appear likely however to be of relevance to cancer generally, and to metastatic spread, rather than just to one or a few cancers, and there is already a lot of evidence, mainly from observational studies, on the association between aspirin and survival in a wide range of cancers.AimsIn order to test the hypothesis that aspirin taking is associated with an increase in the survival of patients with cancer, we conducted a series of systematic literature searches to identify clinical studies of patients with cancer, some of whom took aspirin after having received a diagnosis of cancer.ResultsThree literature searches identified 118 published observational studies in patients with 18 different cancers. Eighty-one studies report on aspirin and cancer mortality and 63 studies report on all-cause mortality. Within a total of about a quarter of a million patients with cancer who reported taking aspirin, representing 20%-25% of the total cohort, we found aspirin to be associated with a reduction of about 20% in cancer deaths (pooled hazard ratio (HR): 0.79; 95% confidence intervals: 0.73, 0.84 in 70 reports and a pooled odds ratio (OR): 0.67; 0.45, 1.00 in 11 reports) with similar reductions in all-cause mortality (HR: 0.80; 0.74, 0.86 in 56 studies and OR: 0.57; 0.36, 0.89 in seven studies). The relative safety of aspirin taking was examined in the studies and the corresponding author of every paper was written to asking for additional information on bleeding. As expected, the frequency of bleeding increased in the patients taking aspirin, but fatal bleeding was rare and no author reported a significant excess in fatal bleeds associated with aspirin. No author mentioned cerebral bleeding in the patients they had followed.ConclusionsThere is a considerable body of evidence suggestive of about a 20% reduction in mortality in patients with cancer who take aspirin, and the benefit appears not to be restricted to one or a few cancers. Aspirin, therefore, appears to deserve serious consideration as an adjuvant treatment of cancer, and patients with cancer, and their carers, have a right to be informed of the available evidence.

Objective:\ud To examine the long-term effects of amateur boxing in a representative population sample of men.\ud Design:\ud The sample was examined every 5 years for 35 years. Cognition was assessed repeatedly from the third examination. Previous boxing experience and dementia were assessed at the fifth examination, and dementia assessed subsequently through medical records.\ud Setting and Assessment of Rick Factors:\ud The Caerphilly Prospective Study investigates risk factors for a range of chronic diseases of diseases. These include life style and behavior, together with biological factors relevant to vascular disease.\ud Participants:\ud 1123 adult men aged 45 to 59 years at baseline, followed for 35 years.\ud Main Outcome Measures:\ud Cognitive impairment.\ud Results:\ud A report by a subject of having boxed “seriously” when younger was associated with a 2-fold increase in cognitive impairment [odds ratio (OR) = 2.27; 95% confidence intervals = 1.18-4.38]. For amnestic (Alzheimer-like) impairment, this rises to OR = 2.78 (95% confidence limits 1.37–5.65). Having boxed is associated with an “advancement” in the onset of the dementia (4.8 years; 95% confidence limits 0.9-8.8 years).\ud Conclusions:\ud Amateur boxing is associated with an increased risk and an earlier onset of cognitive impairment and dementia.

Behaviors which are associated with the preservation of health include nonsmoking, regular exercise, a low body weight, a healthy diet, and a low alcohol intake. Together, as a healthy lifestyle, these have been shown to be associated with marked protection against a wide range of diseases: diabetes, vascular disease, cancer, and dementia. On the other hand, the protection associated with statins and aspirin, the two most commonly used preventive drugs, is limited to vascular disease and, probably for aspirin, cancer.\ud \ud These are not alternative prophylactics and any two, or all three—a healthy lifestyle, a statin, and aspirin—can reasonably be taken together.\ud \ud Only a small proportion of the members of the community follow a healthy lifestyle. Yet a small increase in the uptake of the healthy behaviors throughout the community can be shown to have relatively large effects on the incidence of disease.\ud \ud There is therefore an urgent need for health promotion activities across the whole community to be greatly increased and for new challenging and encouraging strategies to be devised and tested.

Purpose The association between egg consumption and cardiovascular disease (CVD) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains controversial. We investigated the association between egg consumption and risk of CVD (primary outcome), T2D and mortality in the Caerphilly prospective cohort study (CAPS) and National Diet and Nutritional Survey (NDNS). Methods CAPS included 2512 men aged 45–59 years (1979–1983). Dietary intake, disease incidence and mortality were updated at 5-year intervals. NDNS included 754 adults aged 19–64 years from 2008 to 2012. Results Men free of CVD (n = 1781) were followed up for a mean of 22.8 years, egg consumption was not associated with new incidence of CVD (n = 715), mortality (n = 1028) or T2D (n = 120). When stroke (n = 248), MI (n = 477), heart failure (n = 201) were investigated separately, no associations between egg consumption and stroke and MI were identified, however, increased risk of stroke in subjects with T2D and/or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT, fasting plasma glucose ≥ 6.1 mmol/L), adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) were 1.0 (reference), 1.09 (0.41, 2.88), 0.96 (0.37, 2.50), 1.39 (0.54, 3.56) and 2.87 (1.13, 7.27) for egg intake (n) of 0 ≤ n ≤ 1, 1

Context UK Biobank is a prospective study of half a million subjects, almost all aged 40–69 years, identified in 22 centres across the UK during 2006–2010. Objective A healthy lifestyle has been described as ‘better than any pill, and no side effects [5]. We therefore examined the relationships between healthy behaviours: low alcohol intake, non-smoking, healthy BMI, physical activity and a healthy diet, and the risk of all cancers, colon, breast and prostate cancers in a large dataset. Method Data on lifestyle behaviours were provided by 343,150 subjects, and height and weight were measured at recruitment. 14,285 subjects were diagnosed with cancer during a median of 5.1 years of follow-up. Results Compared with subjects who followed none or a single healthy behaviour, a healthy lifestyle based on all five behaviours was associated with a reduction of about one-third in incident cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.63–0.74). Colorectal cancer was reduced in subjects following the five behaviours by about one-quarter (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.58–0.97), and breast cancer by about one-third (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.52–0.83). The association between a healthy lifestyle and prostate cancer suggested a significant increase in risk, but this can be attributed to bias consequent on inequalities in the uptake of the prostate specific antigen screening test. Conclusions Taken together with reported reductions in diabetes, vascular disease and dementia, it is clearly important that every effort is taken to promote healthy lifestyles throughout the population, and it is pointed out that cancer and other screening clinics afford ‘teachable moments’ for the promotion of a healthy lifestyle.

Background Evidence is growing that low-dose aspirin used as an adjuvant treatment of cancer is associated with an increased survival and a reduction in metastatic spread. We therefore extended up to August 2017 an earlier systematic search and meta-analyses of published studies of low-dose aspirin taken by patients with a diagnosis of cancer. Methods Searches were completed in Medline and Embase to August 2017 using a pre-defined search strategy to identify reports of relevant studies. References in all the selected papers were scanned. Two reviewers independently applied pre-determined eligibility criteria and extracted data on cause-specific cancer deaths, overall mortality and the occurrence of metastatic spread. Meta-analyses were then conducted for different cancers and heterogeneity and publication bias assessed. Sensitivity analyses and attempts to reduce heterogeneity were conducted. Results Analyses of 29 studies reported since an earlier review up to April 2015 are presented in this report, and these are then pooled with the 42 studies in our earlier publication. Overall metaanalyses of the 71 studies are presented, based on a total of over 120 thousand patients taking aspirin. Ten of the studies also give evidence on the incidence of metastatic cancer spread. There are now twenty-nine observational studies describing colorectal cancer (CRC) and post-diagnostic aspirin. Pooling the estimates of reduction by aspirin which are reported as hazard ratios (HR), gives an overall HR for aspirin and CRC mortality 0.72(95% CI 0.64-0.80). Fourteen observational studies have reported on aspirin and breast cancer mortality and pooling those that report the association with aspirin as a hazard ratio gives HR 0.69 (0.53-0.90). Sixteen studies report on aspirin and prostate cancer mortality and a pooled estimate yields an HR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.73-1.05). Data from 12 reports relating to other cancers are also listed. Ten studies give evidence of a reduction in metastatic spread; four give a pooled HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.18, 0.54) and five studies which reported odds ratio of metastatic spread give OR 0.79 (0.66 to 0.95). Conclusion Being almost entirely from observational studies, the evidence of benefit from aspirin is limited. There is heterogeneity between studies and the results are subject to important biases, only some of which can be identified. Nevertheless, the evidence would seem to merit wide discussion regarding whether or not it is adequate to justify the recommendation of low-dose therapeutic aspirin, and if it is, for which cancers?

ObjectiveProspective data on the associations between vitamin D intake and risk of CVD and all-cause mortality are limited and inconclusive. The aim of the present study was to investigate the associations between vitamin D intake and CVD risk and all-cause mortality in the Caerphilly Prospective Cohort Study.DesignThe associations of vitamin D intake with CVD risk markers were examined cross-sectionally at baseline and longitudinally at 5-year, 10-year and >20-year follow-ups. In addition, the predictive value of vitamin D intake for CVD events and all-cause mortality after >20 years of follow-up was examined. Logistic regression and general linear regression were used for data analysis.SettingParticipants in the UK.SubjectsMen (n452) who were free from CVD and type 2 diabetes at recruitment.ResultsHigher vitamin D intake was associated with increased HDL cholesterol (P=0·003) and pulse pressure (P=0·04) and decreased total cholesterol:HDL cholesterol (P=0·008) cross-sectionally at baseline, but the associations were lost during follow-up. Furthermore, higher vitamin D intake was associated with decreased concentration of plasma TAG at baseline (P=0·01) and at the 5-year (P=0·01), but not the 10-year examination. After >20 years of follow-up, vitamin D was not associated with stroke (n72), myocardial infarctions (n142), heart failure (n43) or all-cause mortality (n281), but was positively associated with increased diastolic blood pressure (P=0·03).ConclusionsThe study supports associations of higher vitamin D intake with lower fasting plasma TAG and higher diastolic blood pressure.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin has been shown to lower the incidence and the mortality of vascular disease and cancer but its wider adoption appears to be seriously impeded by concerns about gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Unlike heart attacks, stroke and cancer, GI bleeding is an acute event, usually followed by complete recovery. We propose therefore that a more appropriate evaluation of the risk-benefit balance would be based on fatal adverse events, rather than on the incidence of bleeding. We therefore present a literature search and meta-analysis to ascertain fatal events attributable to low-dose aspirin. METHODS: In a systematic literature review we identified reports of randomised controlled trials of aspirin in which both total GI bleeding events and bleeds that led to death had been reported. Principal investigators of studies in which fatal events had not been adequately described were contacted via email and asked for further details. A meta-analyses was then performed to estimate the risk of fatal gastrointestinal bleeding attributable to low-dose aspirin. RESULTS: Eleven randomised trials were identified in the literature search. In these the relative risk (RR) of 'major' incident GI bleeding in subjects who had been randomised to low-dose aspirin was 1.55 (95% CI 1.33, 1.83), and the risk of a bleed attributable to aspirin being fatal was 0.45 (95% CI 0.25, 0.80). In all the subjects randomised to aspirin, compared with those randomised not to receive aspirin, there was no significant increase in the risk of a fatal bleed (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.41, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the adverse events caused by aspirin are GI bleeds, and there appears to be no valid evidence that the overall frequency of fatal GI bleeds is increased by aspirin. The substantive risk for prophylactic aspirin is therefore cerebral haemorrhage which can be fatal or severely disabling, with an estimated risk of one death and one disabling stroke for every 1,000 people taking aspirin for ten years. These adverse effects of aspirin should be weighed against the reductions in vascular disease and cancer.